All of this advice is informative and useful, but it is only minimally representative of what the piano and keys actually were playing on the "live" recording. I would say it's more representative of how one might "simplify" an arrangement. Listening to the original piano, keys 1, and keys2 track presents a completely different picture of the contributions of the keyboard parts. Seth hinted about playing along with tracks and I wonder if that is what actually was done for the "live" recording. Just to take the intro for example. What Seth played with his right hand, the piano doesn't play on the original; that riff is played on a multivoiced synthesizer lead. Also the pad "gluing" it together is not a duplication of the piano notes, but a completely different sustained chord (Keys 2 track). On the verse for the piano track there is an arpeggiated part (dulcimer?) playing high above that piano riff with the alternating finger sixteenth notes for the verse. So if the Keyboard player is to think like an arranger/producer should he/she actually be pre-recording multiple over dubbed tracks and just play piano "live"? I would love to hear how the actual tracks were made, ie. break down their component parts.
As the guy clearly said, as a keyboard player you shouldn't feel that you should have to fill every space. As you've said in your own comment there are multiple different keyboard players playing different patches so it impossible for one person to do all that on their own. Thinking like an arranger doesn't mean trying to replicate everything that is done on the original recording of a song especially if you don't have the luxury of multiple musicians.
@@JustinDAMusic Actually one keyboard player can cover multiple parts using hardware/VST's and the midi effects that are available in MainStage or Abelton Live. Just look at any of the Song Specific Patch videos that Sunday Sounds puts out at least once weekly. You will see how she is covering multiple parts; most of my keyboard tutorials do something similar if not more so. I would agree you DON'T HAVE TO fill every space; you can have just piano or just piano and a pad, which could be an "arranger" decision. But ask yourself why did the song's producer/arranger have multiple keyboard and multiple guitar tracks in any given production? It's not just to "fill space", but for muscial reasons I would argue. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
The RU-vid link above for the song shows TWO keyboard players. The majority of worship teams don't have that luxury; so again, it appears to me that the advice is more applicable to simplifying the process of learning a song, and it is in direct contrast to the "song specific patch" approach production of Sunday Sounds?
Sounds nice but its kind of boring music- to sit there and play those kinds of chords for a whole set is quite monotonous. But it sound good in headphones.
Hardware question.. I'm upgrading my mid 2015 Macbook Pro. I'm searching for the M1 variant, but they're hard to find. If I go with the new M2 chip, will I be fine, or is it a no?
I've been using an M1 Mac Mini for one year with complex multiple VST's, FX's, etc and it's been handling 99% of what I've thrown at it. So I think the M1 Macbook Air could be a good choice for you, but I would recommend spending a bit more for 16 GB of RAM.
@@allendunning272 I definitely would go with 16gb. It's what I currently have and I like the peace of mind. I'm just wondering architecture wise between the M1 and M2. Macbook Pro would be my go to as I prefer the fans and it's portable enough for me.
That acoustic piano and pad combination can be monotonous. There are situations where a rhodes or DX sound can say so much more and not clash with guitars.
